What’s your height and what’s your swing speed?

[Obee]

3 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

Going to have to look around more, but from the detailed studies I could find the consensus was the genetic component needs more evaluation. Some said it accounts for 30-80% of athletic performance where others said the presence or lack of ACTN3, the gene responsible for the most efficient production of a main protein in fast twitch muscle fibers, only accounts for about a 3% difference in athletic performance. Another study identified at least 57 genetic variants associated with muscle size and development. In another study less than 20% of those in the cohort, made up entirely of athletes, had muscle composition that was most heavily Type-I fiber, which as mentioned earlier is believed to be more important for explosive movements as well as endurance. 

 

Those kind of findings suggest genetics are simply the difference in more readily hitting the heights for performance, not an indicator of a low ceiling for average participants in any sport.

 

There are some easy to eyeball players who are nowhere near having struck the genetic lottery on any front yet the achieve 115+ CHS with little issue after training, with many exceeding it. That's anecdotal I'll admit, but I've yet to run into anyone with a sound swing who actually maintains their fitness and does a proper training program for better speed and doesn't see worthwhile results. 

You don't need to go much further than to read identical twin studies. It's ~50%. Everything else is noise or somebody trying to sell you something.

 

This stuff is so tiresome. "Anybody can be whatever they want to be!!!"

 

Flippin' neauseating ... and demonstrably untrue.

Edited March 8 by Obee
Typo

[Pnwpingi210]

6 minutes ago, Obee said:

You don't need to go much further than to read identical twin studies. It's ~50%. Everything else is noise or somebody trying to sell you something.

 

This stuff is so tiresome. "Anybody can be whatever they want to be!!!"

 

Flippin' neauseating ... and denonstrably untrue.

It’s a little more complex than just 50%
 

what can say for certain is most players aren’t near their genetic ceiling for swing speed.  Can everybody hit 130mph?  Nope.  But most everyone can swing faster before their genetics become the limitation.

[Obee]

4 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

It’s a little more complex than just 50%
 

what can say for certain is most players aren’t near their genetic ceiling for swing speed.  Can everybody hit 130mph?  Nope.  But most everyone can swing faster before their genetics become the limitation.

Both things are true. I agree 100% that virtually everyone can swing faster with the right training and diet and exercise, etc.

[Nels55]

11 minutes ago, Obee said:

You don't need to go much further than to read identical twin studies. It's ~50%. Everything else is noise or somebody trying to sell you something.

 

This stuff is so tiresome. "Anybody can be whatever they want to be!!!"

 

Flippin' neauseating ... and denonstrably untrue.

I'll tell you what's nauseating.  Training hard, weights, running, doing the steps, explosive work and a ton of shooting baskets and playing pickup games only to get my @ss handed to me in a rec league game by an older fat guy who barely plays once a week in the winter time...

[Obee]

3 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

I'll tell you what's nauseating.  Training hard, weights, running, doing the steps, explosive work and a ton of shooting baskets and playing pickup games only to get my @ss handed to me in a rec league game by an older fat guy who barely plays once a week in the winter time...

Yup. You know why? Because that guy has some proprioception genes that you do not. I'm that guy. 

[Pnwpingi210]

7 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

I'll tell you what's nauseating.  Training hard, weights, running, doing the steps, explosive work and a ton of shooting baskets and playing pickup games only to get my @ss handed to me in a rec league game by an older fat guy who barely plays once a week in the winter time...

 

3 minutes ago, Obee said:

Yup. You know why? Because that guy has some proprioception genes that you do not. I'm that guy. 

There will always be outliers…..

 

I would suspect the work that nels puts in to make them better than their average rec leaguer?

[PedronNiall]

26 minutes ago, Obee said:

You don't need to go much further than to read identical twin studies. It's ~50%. Everything else is noise or somebody trying to sell you something.

 

This stuff is so tiresome. "Anybody can be whatever they want to be!!!"

 

Flippin' neauseating ... and denonstrably untrue.

 

As the twin studies/heritability estimate approach has received scathing criticism [36,37,38], it is helpful to fully explain the concept of heritability, which is often misunderstood. For example, a heritability estimate of 93% for a given trait such as V[O2Max]⋅O2max is often misinterpreted to mean that 93% of this phenotype is genetically determined and the remaining 7% is susceptible to environmental modification. Heritability has no etiologic role in a phenotype, nor is it meaningful in terms of measurement in an individual. It is a statistical measure, expressed as a proportion, and refers only to the population under study. More specifically, it describes the extent to which heredity affects the variation of a given attribute in a given population exposed to common environmental influences at a given time. A high heritable attribute does not mean that a phenotype is predetermined and the environment has no effect. It only indicates that the observed individual differences in the given attribute are due to genetic differences and are highly predictable [39]. A frequently overlooked limitation of the early twin studies is that nearly all heritability estimates have been derived using twins exposed to normal environmental influences and represent the normal range of the bell curve and not elite-level athletic twins. The necessity for a nature-nurture investigation using Olympic twin athletes who have actualised their genetic potential with strenuous athletic training and represent the high end of the distribution is clearly required, in that it may provide new insight and may have far-reaching implications to the nature and nurture debate [40]. Further limitations of research on twins are also addressed by Ericsson [4], who advocates “twin studies of the acquisition of elite performance are unlikely ever to resolve the issue of heritability of elite performance”.

 

Despite some early progress, the question remains as to which genetic variants are those that irrefutably define elite athletic performance and trainability, as numerous attempts to discover candidate genes have largely proved inconclusive, even when genetic superiority was widely assumed as in the African runners phenomenon [45, 46] or conversely the lack of African-American swimmers excelling on the world stage [47]. This outcome is not surprising, given the complexity of both the genomic and phenotypic features in humans. As of 2008, over 200 genes were associated with human physical performance, with more reported since [48].

 

In a recent review [41], we argue that the limited progress achieved today in the field of sport and exercise genomics is due to limitations in the number of genetic variants studied in small and often heterogeneous cohorts, resulting in “spurious and conflicting results”.

 

Bold emphasis mine. 

 

Even more important than multiple research studies and individual researchers finding faults with the twin studies and how some of the data has been presented is the fact that these studies are only discussing the limitations of people reaching the elite level of performance. We're not talking about everyone becoming Berkshire or Sadowski, we're talking about the majority of people being able to achieve 115+ CHS when they're somewhere in their prime, when engaging in a proven training regimen. Nothing about genetics determining elite status indicates that to be untrue. Fine with being shown evidence otherwise but I've yet to see it. The threads on here where people go in on proper speed training and fitness--even at times without having cleaned up their swing first--show positive outcomes, not stagnation. Again, anecdotal, but I don't see studies showing that to be anything unexpected.

 

 

[Obee]

On 3/8/2025 at 3:35 PM, PedronNiall said:

 

As the twin studies/heritability estimate approach has received scathing criticism [36,37,38], it is helpful to fully explain the concept of heritability, which is often misunderstood. For example, a heritability estimate of 93% for a given trait such as V[O2Max]⋅O2max is often misinterpreted to mean that 93% of this phenotype is genetically determined and the remaining 7% is susceptible to environmental modification. Heritability has no etiologic role in a phenotype, nor is it meaningful in terms of measurement in an individual. It is a statistical measure, expressed as a proportion, and refers only to the population under study. More specifically, it describes the extent to which heredity affects the variation of a given attribute in a given population exposed to common environmental influences at a given time. A high heritable attribute does not mean that a phenotype is predetermined and the environment has no effect. It only indicates that the observed individual differences in the given attribute are due to genetic differences and are highly predictable [39]. A frequently overlooked limitation of the early twin studies is that nearly all heritability estimates have been derived using twins exposed to normal environmental influences and represent the normal range of the bell curve and not elite-level athletic twins. The necessity for a nature-nurture investigation using Olympic twin athletes who have actualised their genetic potential with strenuous athletic training and represent the high end of the distribution is clearly required, in that it may provide new insight and may have far-reaching implications to the nature and nurture debate [40]. Further limitations of research on twins are also addressed by Ericsson [4], who advocates “twin studies of the acquisition of elite performance are unlikely ever to resolve the issue of heritability of elite performance”.

 

Despite some early progress, the question remains as to which genetic variants are those that irrefutably define elite athletic performance and trainability, as numerous attempts to discover candidate genes have largely proved inconclusive, even when genetic superiority was widely assumed as in the African runners phenomenon [45, 46] or conversely the lack of African-American swimmers excelling on the world stage [47]. This outcome is not surprising, given the complexity of both the genomic and phenotypic features in humans. As of 2008, over 200 genes were associated with human physical performance, with more reported since [48].

 

In a recent review [41], we argue that the limited progress achieved today in the field of sport and exercise genomics is due to limitations in the number of genetic variants studied in small and often heterogeneous cohorts, resulting in “spurious and conflicting results”.

 

Bold emphasis mine. 

 

Even more important than multiple research studies and individual researchers finding faults with the twin studies and how some of the data has been presented is the fact that these studies are only discussing the limitations of people reaching the elite level of performance. We're not talking about everyone becoming Berkshire or Sadowski, we're talking about the majority of people being able to achieve 115+ CHS when they're somewhere in their prime, when engaging in a proven training regimen. Nothing about genetics determining elite status indicates that to be untrue. Fine with being shown evidence otherwise but I've yet to see it. The threads on here where people go in on proper speed training and fitness--even at times without having cleaned up their swing first--show positive outcomes, not stagnation. Again, anecdotal, but I don't see studies showing that to be anything unexpected.

 

 

Self. Selecting. Samples.

 

The people willing to put in the time and effort to even consider getting to 115 mph club head speed already have greater than average ability, because the concept of them getting there intrigues them. They have early success in athletics and/or in golf and they want to find more.

 

People born with two left feet generally do not become professional or wannabe professional dancers

 

People born with 70 IQs don't generally choose differential equations as their hobby.

 

...and those that do are supreme outliers. So if you took a universe of everyone with a 70 IQ who happens to do reasonably well at freshman calculus, you are dealing with a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of humans.

 

 

Edited March 10 by Obee

[Pnwpingi210]

24 minutes ago, Obee said:

Self. Selecting. Samples.

 

The people willing to put in the time and effort to even consider getting to 115 mph club head speed already have greater than Saturday night in mind average ability, because the concept of them getting there intrigues them. They have early success in athletics and/or in golf and they want to find more.

 

People born with two left feet generally do not become professional or wannabe professional dancers

 

People born with 70 IQs don't generally choose differential equations as their hobby.

 

...and those that do are supreme outliers. So if you took a universe of everyone with a 70 IQ who happens to do reasonably well at freshman calculus, you are dealing with a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of humans.

 

 

You’re appealing to extremes by using outliers to make your point.

 

There is zero evidence to prove that a healthy male between the age of 20 to let’s say 40 couldn’t achieve 115mph peak club head speed.  Zero.   And we are talking gen pop, not extreme outliers (highly trained athletes, people with clinical, physical limitations)
 

If you have something other than anecdotes I’d love to see it.

edit I will add we are talking about moving an object is around 320 grams in total, and roughly 45 inch’s in length over a large arc, using our entire body.  This doesn’t require some freak strength or muscle fiber type stuff.  

 

 

Edited March 9 by Pnwpingi210

[Nels55]

52 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

You’re appealing to extremes by using outliers to make your point.

 

There is zero evidence to prove that a healthy male between the age of 20 to let’s say 40 couldn’t achieve 115mph peak club head speed.  Zero.   And we are talking gen pop, not extreme outliers (highly trained athletes, people with clinical, physical limitations)
 

If you have something other than anecdotes I’d love to see it.

edit I will add we are talking about moving an object is around 320 grams in total, and roughly 45 inch’s in length over a large arc, using our entire body.  This doesn’t require some freak strength or muscle fiber type stuff.  

 

 

There is also zero evidence that they could achieve 115mph clubhead speed. 

[Pnwpingi210]

23 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

There is also zero evidence that they could achieve 115mph clubhead speed. 

Not true.  Plenty of people achieve it between the ages of 20 and 40.  

[Nels55]

28 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Not true.  Plenty of people achieve it between the ages of 20 and 40.  

Plenty don't.  There is no proof either way.  People who try are self selecting.  My own opinion is that a fair number of average males of that age would struggle to reach 100 mph. 

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Nels55 said:

Plenty don't.  There is no proof either way.  People who try are self selecting.  My own opinion is that a fair number of average males of that age would struggle to reach 100 mph. 

Between the ages of 20-40?   
 

you don’t play with many males between the age of 20-40….do you?

 

https://www.mytpi.com/articles/swing/club-head-speed-by-age-group-what-percentile-are-you-in

 

It’s not a perfect data set but it tells us that 100-110 is within three realm of reason for most golfers between 20-40.

 

certainly better than shooting from the hip with no data set…

[Nels55]

2 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Between the ages of 20-40?   
 

you don’t play with many males between the age of 20-40….do you?

 

https://www.mytpi.com/articles/swing/club-head-speed-by-age-group-what-percentile-are-you-in

 

It’s not a perfect data set but it tells us that 100-110 is within three realm of reason for most golfers between 20-40.

 

certainly better than shooting from the hip with no data set…

LOL I have played and still do play with a lot of them and I was one for 20 years.  I never got to 115 back then though I was swinging a persimmon driver with steel shaft.  I did know a fair number athletic guys who swung easily at that speed back in the day.  Many more shall we say less athletic guys who could barely hit the ball 200 yards on a good day. 

 

The data you presented is interesting.  It looks like the data is based on committed golfers and likely pretty good ones not average people so again a self selecting group.  

 

The answer to this particular debate is unknown and I do respect your opinion though mine differs by a rather large amount.  I am more in the nature not nurture camp.

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Nels55 said:

LOL I have played and still do play with a lot of them and I was one for 20 years.  I never got to 115 back then though I was swinging a persimmon driver with steel shaft.  I did know a fair number athletic guys who swung easily at that speed back in the day.  Many more shall we say less athletic guys who could barely hit the ball 200 yards on a good day. 

 

The data you presented is interesting.  It looks like the data is based on committed golfers and likely pretty good ones not average people so again a self selecting group.  

 

The answer to this particular debate is unknown and I do respect your opinion though mine differs by a rather large amount.  I am more in the nature not nurture camp.

The data suggest that an average male golfer that learns how to swing the club is capable of that speed. 
 

We keep discounting its self selecting but that really a weak position.  We are talking about average golfers.  We aren’t talking about taking 30 yr old random dude that never swung a golf club and saying hit 110mph!

 

 

 

 

[KD1]

4 hours ago, Obee said:

Yup. You know why? Because that guy has some proprioception genes that you do not. I'm that guy. 

 

Someone's quite passionate about their genetic superiority... Talk about full stop nauseating

[Nels55]

25 minutes ago, KD1 said:

 

Someone's quite passionate about their genetic superiority... Talk about full stop nauseating

Lol it ain't bragging if you can back it up!  He can.

[Pnwpingi210]

12 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Lol it ain't bragging if you can back it up!  He can.

[Forged4ever]

On 3/2/2025 at 8:24 PM, vegasandre said:

I have started looking into it this LD stuff this past couple months and it is interesting. 
Been following Fast Eddie(the perfect LD swing IMO) and will hope to get better synchronized through his forthcoming program. 
 

 

Yah, 6'4" 3-X World Long Drive Champion "Fast" Eddie Fernandes can bring it!!

 

For those that aren't familiar.....

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BZBwdyqaE/?mibextid=wwXIfr

 

Oh, and for those knuckleheads who regurgitate the myth that Long Ballers can't Play(who always seem to be mid/high caps who chirp this😂😂, never Players, who know better), Hernandes has won a combined 25 Mini Tour events

 

All the Best with the LD Brotha👊

RP

 

Edited March 9 by Forged4ever

[Obee]

19 hours ago, KD1 said:

 

Someone's quite passionate about their genetic superiority... Talk about full stop nauseating

I carry driver 215. I have absolutely zero genetic superiority in the "speed/explosiveness" department.

 

You need the full context buddy.

[fishstix94]

6'3

225 (should be 20lbs lighter)

30yo

Cruising at about 118mph on trackman. Just don't ask which direction the ball goes! 

[PedronNiall]

On 3/8/2025 at 10:19 PM, Nels55 said:

LOL I have played and still do play with a lot of them and I was one for 20 years.  I never got to 115 back then though I was swinging a persimmon driver with steel shaft.  I did know a fair number athletic guys who swung easily at that speed back in the day.  Many more shall we say less athletic guys who could barely hit the ball 200 yards on a good day. 

 

The data you presented is interesting.  It looks like the data is based on committed golfers and likely pretty good ones not average people so again a self selecting group.  

 

The answer to this particular debate is unknown and I do respect your opinion though mine differs by a rather large amount.  I am more in the nature not nurture camp.

 

 

It's absolutely wild to me how you dismiss researchers with decades and decades of study and practice shared between them with zero indication of bias in their methods and findings, as well as data collected and vetted by TPI, hopping on claims of "self selection", then go all in on the thoughts of individuals elsewhere because they resonate with you despite zero basis in science for their methods and zero basis in available data for their claims. I don't get it. 

 

TPI and credentialed researcher data that doesn't align with what you want to believe? Bunk. Made up stuff that can be shifted to work with whatever it needs to? Golden. I can't wrap my head around pushing all of this so hard and ignoring any and everything that doesn't agree with it while stating the aim is to play better golf. How do you see the value of data from a reputable source to the point of highlighting a TPI vid of Clark then straight up dismiss their work as bogus when it doesn't say what you want it to? 

[Nels55]

3 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

 

It's absolutely wild to me how you dismiss researchers with decades and decades of study and practice shared between them with zero indication of bias in their methods and findings, as well as data collected and vetted by TPI, hopping on claims of "self selection", then go all in on the thoughts of individuals elsewhere because they resonate with you despite zero basis in science for their methods and zero basis in available data for their claims. I don't get it. 

 

TPI and credentialed researcher data that doesn't align with what you want to believe? Bunk. Made up stuff that can be shifted to work with whatever it needs to? Golden. I can't wrap my head around pushing all of this so hard and ignoring any and everything that doesn't agree with it while stating the aim is to play better golf. How do you see the value of data from a reputable source to the point of highlighting a TPI vid of Clark then straight up dismiss their work as bogus when it doesn't say what you want it to? 

You are saying that there is data proving that an extremely uncoordinated and unathletic 20 year old male can be trained to swing 115 mph?

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, Nels55 said:

You are saying that there is data proving that an extremely uncoordinated and unathletic 20 year old male can be trained to swing 115 mph?

The data is saying if you took a large sample of golfers of that age group and skill level, they could swing the club at the average identified by percentile.

 

Will every person be able to do it no, but on average the will be able to hit the number posted by percentile.

 

this is not hard to understand. 

[Nels55]

Just now, Pnwpingi210 said:

The data is saying if you took a large sample of golfers of that age group and skill level, they could swing the club at the average identified by percentile.

 

Will every person be able to do it no, but on average the will be able to hit the number posted by percentile.

 

this is not hard to understand. 

Maybe.  I have been saying that the guy who got picked last in PE class is not going to swing 115 mph.  I think less then 100 mph.

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Nels55 said:

Maybe.  I have been saying that the guy who got picked last in PE class is not going to swing 115 mph.  I think less then 100 mph.

There are always outliers man, what is you point with this?

[MK7Golf21]

wasn't the average pga tour driver swing speed according to trackman 115mph as of 2023 data they collected?

 

https://www.trackman.com/blog/golf/introducing-updated-tour-averages

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, MK7Golf21 said:

wasn't the average pga tour driver swing speed according to trackman 115mph as of 2023 data they collected?

 

https://www.trackman.com/blog/golf/introducing-updated-tour-averages

Yup.  That’s about the average, on-course swing for all players that played a tour event over the course of the season.

 

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/02401

Edited March 10 by Pnwpingi210

[weems]

36yr old 6'0 210lbs, I cruise around 115-118.  But like the previous poster said, couldn't tell you where it's gonna go haha

[Nels55]

27 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

There are always outliers man, what is you point with this?

The only way you could prove that average 20 to 40 year old males can swing 115 miles per hour would be to take a large sample size and somehow motivate them to train hard for some period of time and measure the results.

 

My point is and has been that not everyone could do it.